Army: Future Requirements

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider the Army's fighting units to be under strength; and, if so, by how much in percentage terms.

Lord Drayson: Army manning activity is based on the regular army liability (RAL) which forecasts future establishment requirements. The establishments shown below take into account the changes announced as part of the future army structure (FAS) which have yet to be fully implemented. Implementation of FAS will see a general normalisation between establishment and strength. To achieve this, those posts freed up by reductions to certain arms will be reinvested back into the Army in those arms expanding and those requiring reinforcement. Fighting units have been defined as shown in the table below.
	
		
			 Arm/Service Requirement Strength Percentage Difference 
			 Household Cavalry/   Royal ArmouredCorps 5,300 5,660 6.4 
			 Royal Artillery 7,580 7,500 -1.1 
			 Royal Engineers 10,020 8,800 -13.9 
			 Infantry 24,420 25,030 2.4 
			 Army Air Corps 2,160 1,920 -12.5 
			 Totals 49,490 48,910 -1.2

Asylum Seekers: Amnesty International Report

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the recommendations of Amnesty International in their 2005 report Seeking Asylum is not a crime: Detention of people who have sought asylum that (a) the authorities should only resort to detaining those who have sought asylum in exceptional circumstances and only when it is lawful; (b) there should be a statutory presumption against detention; (c) alternative non-custodial measures, such as reporting requirements, should always be considered before resorting to detention; (d) there should be a statutory prohibition on the detention of vulnerable people including: torture survivors, pregnant women, the ill and the elderly; (e) there should be a statutory prohibition on the detention of unaccompanied children; and (f) the criteria for detention should be set out on a statutory basis.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I confirmed during Oral Questions on Wednesday, 22 June, (Official Report, col. 1648) we are currently considering the report. Its content and recommendations need careful consideration before offering a response to its recommendations.

Asylum Seekers: Bail

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many detained asylum seekers were granted bail in 2004.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Immigration bail can be granted by either a chief immigration officer or an immigration judge. Immigration judges of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), pursuant to Section 22 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, are provided with powers to release temporarily persons in detention under certain provisions of the Immigration Acts. The AIT does not categorise bail applications according to the immigration status of the individual applicants. Provisional figures show that a total of 3, 774 bail applications were promulgated by the AIT in 2004, of which 1,053 were granted. Figures on the number of asylum detainees granted bail by chief immigration officers in 2004 are not available and could only be produced at disproportionate cost, by examination of individual case files.

Beaches: No Smoking Policy

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many English and Welsh resort beaches now operate (a) a no smoking policy, and (b) a no glass policy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Information about such policies is not held centrally.
	Advice from the British Resorts Association and the Beach Management Forum shows that Bournemouth is the only authority of which they aware that operates a no smoking policy on part of its beach front. They are also unaware of any English or Welsh authority operating a no glass policy.

Cabinet Office: Air Travel Expenditure

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much was spent by the Cabinet Office on air travel, both domestic and international, for each of the past eight years.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amount used on domestic and overseas non-ministerial air travel in the Cabinet Office from financial years 1997–98 to 2004–05 is shown in the table.
	
		
			 Year Amount 
			 1997–98 £1,074,381 
			 1998–99 £756,112 
			 1999–2000 £682,529 
			 2000–01 £884,618 
			 2001–02 £2,992,276 
			 2002–03 £2,275,907 
		
	
	It is not possible to provide comparable figures for the financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05, because in those years a number of changes were made to the accounting system in order to rationalise the number of accounts and details of air costs ceased to be held separately.
	Expenditure on air travel rose in 2001–02 and 2002–03 as a result of 9/11: transatlantic travel increased significantly as did visits to other allies.
	All official travel in the department is undertaken strictly in accordance with the rules contained in the Cabinet Office management code.

Cabinet Office: Budget

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the budget for the Cabinet Office in each financial year for the past eight years, expressed in 2005 figures.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Cabinet Office resource and capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for the past four years, expressed in 2004 figures, is shown in the table.
	It is not possible to express the budget in 2005 figures as the gross domestic product (GDP) index for the year is not available until the end of the financial year.
	Budget information has only been provided for years 2001–02 to 2004–05. The figures used are from the relevant spring supplementary estimates. Prior to 2001–02 supply estimates were cash based and therefore not comparable with resource based estimates.
	Prior years' outturn information and forward years' budgets can be obtained from the Cabinet Office 2005 Departmental Report (Cm 6543).
	
		Cabinet Office budget expressed in 2004 figures using GDP deflators (000's)
		
			  2004 Prices  
			 Years Resource DEL1 Capital DEL GDP2 index Deflator rebased DEL Capital 
			 2001–02 356,885 85,191 100 108.80 388,291 92,688 
			 2002–03 240,623 69,142 103.2 105.43 253,680 72,894 
			 2003–04 277,747 86,189 106.5 102.16 283,745 88,050 
			 2004–05 254,052 29,000 108.8 100 254,052 29,000 
		
	
	Notes:
	1 In 2001–02 and 2002–03, departments showed non-cash charges separately in AME (annually managed expenditure). For the purpose of comparison with budgets from 2003–04 onwards, resource DEL and AME have been combined.
	2 Source: HM Treasury

China: North Korean Refugees

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, since January 2005, they have discussed with the government of China access for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to all refugees or illegal residents from North Korea; and, if so, what response they received.

Lord Triesman: We have concerns about the situation of North Korean border-crossers in China. We have raised the matter with the Chinese Government several times, most recently during the UK-China human rights dialogue, held in London on 6 June. We urged China to allow staff from the office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to visit the border area and to apply the principle of non-refoulement to border-crossers. The Chinese did not respond directly to our request.

Communication Service Providers: Data Retention

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the response to the proposal by the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, they still support European Union draft proposals to extend to 36 months the period for the retention of data by communication service providers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and, if so, what is their estimate in terabytes of the amount of information that would be retained.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As a sponsor of the initiative, the Government support the draft framework decision on the retention of communication data which provides that member states take necessary measures to ensure that certain communication data be retained for periods of up to 12 months following its generation. Only by derogation may any member state provide for the retention of certain data for longer periods when such retention constitutes a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure within a democratic society. The Government have no intention of so derogating. The voluntary code of practice on retention of communications data adopted by Parliament under Part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 makes clear that 12 months is the maximum period for which communications service providers can retain any data not otherwise required to be retained for a lawful business purpose.

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to change the law to extend the right to roam to cover land surrounding privately-owned listed buildings.

Lord Bach: There is no intention to change the provisions of Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Act) with regard to land surrounding privately-owned listed buildings.
	Schedule 1 to the Act lists 13 categories of land that will be excepted from the right of access even if they are shown on the Countryside Agency's maps of open country and registered common land. These include land covered by buildings and their curtilage and land within 20 metres of a dwelling.

Disability Discrimination Act 1975

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether those public bodies which are sponsored by the Cabinet Office comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1975.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes. All public bodies sponsored by the Cabinet Office comply with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1975. These are advisory bodies and the Cabinet Office is committed to ensure that arrangements for appointments to these bodies comply with its own good practice guidance on encouraging a wide diversity of applicants and ensuring that the recruitment process is fair.
	The department is also committed to ensuring that the working arrangements for the bodies comply with the DDA. For example, when meetings take place on Cabinet Office premises, members of staff are able to refer to a diversity meeting planner to ensure that the needs of disabled people are fully met.

Electoral Registration and Personal Identifiers

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to ensure that recognition information, such as date of birth, does not become part of a public record when it is recorded as part of voter registration.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Personal identifiers, such as dates of birth and signatures, are not currently used as part of electoral registration in Great Britain. The Government are currently considering the proposal that they should be collected and used, and published a policy paper for discussion which covered this issue on 25 May. The Government are still considering the various responses to this discussion and no decision has yet been taken on whether or not to take this policy forward.
	In Northern Ireland, where personal identifiers are collected as part of electoral registration, this data is not made publicly available. This would also be the case if the policy were extended to the rest of the UK.

English Heritage

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether English Heritage, its staff and volunteers have the right in law to enter land surrounding privately-owned listed buildings for the purpose of taking photographs of those buildings.

Lord Davies of Oldham: One of English Heritage's statutory functions is that it may make and maintain records in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. This includes photographic records. English Heritage's staff and volunteers have the right to enter publicly accessible land surrounding listed buildings. Privately owned land is generally entered only with the consent of the owner or occupier. However, in very limited circumstances any person may be authorised to enter any land by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, a local planning authority or, where a building is in Greater London, English Heritage. This can only be for specified purposes relating to the protection of the historic environment, for example, to ascertain whether an offence has been committed of carrying out unauthorised works to a listed building or to ascertain whether any building on the land is being maintained in a proper state of repair.

EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date, during their presidency of the European Union, they will hold the next round of the European Union-Iran human rights dialogue; and what issues they will place on the agenda for that meeting.

Lord Triesman: The EU is discussing, with the Iranian authorities, dates for the next round of the dialogue. We have proposed dates in September. The agenda will be decided in consultation with other EU member states once dates have been confirmed. We would expect to discuss a wide range of human rights concerns. An evaluation of the dialogue by the EU in October 2004 found that there had been little overall progress in the human rights situation since the start of the process. The EU has been pursuing improvements to the format and a renewed commitment from Iran.

Homicides

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 9 June (WA 96), why information on homicides in Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester is not available; whether such information used to be collected; and, if so, what financial savings have resulted from the decision not to collect this information.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Information published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 02/05, Crime in England and Wales 2003–04: Supplementary Volume 1: Homicide and Gun Crime is extracted from the homicide index database. This database has always stored details on each homicide at police force area level only. Specific questions on homicide are responded to using the homicide index data. I regret that the original reply was based on this data rather than the data contained in the recorded crime. Since 2002–03, the recorded crime database has stored numbers of offences recorded by the police at basic command unit (BCU) level and crime and disorder reduction partnership (CDRP) level. Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool and Manchester are all CDRP areas. The average rate per year of homicides for the period 2002–03 to 2003–04 is Birmingham 3.01, Cardiff 0.98, Liverpool 2.95 and Manchester 4.31. Information relating to Scotland is a matter for Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Correspondence Targets

Lord Naseby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why it took over five months for the Home Office to reply to a letter from the Lord Naseby (Home Office Reference W2079348; CTS Reference M21460/4).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Our aim is to reply to 95 per cent of letters to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) within 20 working days and to 100 per cent within 40 days. Regrettably, we fell well short of that standard of service in this instance and I apologise for the administrative oversight which caused such a delay. During 2004–05 IND received over 38,700 letters from Members of Parliament. This represented an increase of 53 per cent over 2003–04. Such an increase has inevitably resulted in replies to some letters being delayed. We are however currently putting in place an action plan to get us to the 95 per cent target.

Infantry Officers: Redundancy

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many infantry officers have lodged expressions of interest to be considered for group 1 redundancy.

Lord Drayson: 175 infantry officers lodged expression of interest to be considered for group 1 redundancy.

Infantry Officers: Redundancy

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many infantry officers have had their expressions of interest for group 1 redundancy refused.

Lord Drayson: 54 infantry officers who expressed an interest in group 1 redundancy have not been selected for redundancy.

Landmark Training Consortium

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date the Landmark Training consortium was awarded preferred bidder status for the project to provide training on tanks and armoured vehicles for the British Army; what the financial obligations on the members of the consortium were as a consequence of such award; on what date the Ministry of Defence decided to abandon the proposed contract; and on what date the consortium was informed of this decision.

Lord Drayson: The Landmark Training consortium was not awarded preferred bidder status. It was informed of its selection as intended preferred bidder on 22 July 2004. No financial obligations on members of the consortium were conditional on this appointment. The Ministry of Defence then engaged with Landmark Training consortium for a risk reduction period to establish if an affordable, value for money deal was achievable. At the end of the risk reduction period, a revised proposal was submitted by Landmark Training consortium on 17 January 2005. Evaluation of this proposal led to a conclusion on 25 May 2005 that a value for money deal could not be reached that met the MoD requirement. The consortium was informed of this decision on 15 June 2005.

Lord Birt

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On how many occasions in the past year the Lord Birt, the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, has met the incumbent Cabinet Secretary for bilateral discussions; and
	Whether the Lord Birt, the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, had access to papers or discussions relating to the appointment of the Cabinet Secretary; and whether he discussed the appointment of Sir Gus O'Donnell at any stage with the Prime Minister; and
	Whether the Nolan rules and the Ministerial Code allow for the involvement of strategy advisers in the appointment of senior civil servants; and whether the role of such advisers will be considered in any review of the Ministerial Code.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Information relating to internal meetings, discussion and advice is not disclosed as to do so could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.
	As an unpaid adviser, Lord Birt has no role in matters of recruitment, appointment, promotion or reward of civil servants.
	The role and duties of unpaid advisers is set out in the Ministerial Code. There are no plans to change the rules relating to the appointment of unpaid advisers

Lord Birt

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the terms of reference of the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, the Lord Birt.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Lord Birt is the Prime Minister's unpaid strategy adviser. He provides the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with private advice on a range of issues. Lord Birt is also a member of the Cabinet Office Strategy Board and the Civil Service Reform Programme Board.

Lord Birt

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 20 June (WA 158) and given that records are not kept of companies which are clients of McKinsey and Company Incorporated, what steps the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, the Lord Birt, has taken to resolve any conflicts of interest in a manner that protects the public interest in accordance with the sixth general principle of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The handling of conflicts of interests—real or perceived—is set out in Lord Birt's letter of appointment, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Birt

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service has discussed with the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, the Lord Birt, his role as an adviser to McKinsey and Company Incorporated, New York.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Cabinet Secretary has regular discussions with Lord Birt. It has never been the practice of this or any other government to disclose the content or detail of such discussions involving the Cabinet Secretary and others.

Lord Birt

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Lord Birt, in his capacity as the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, has met the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Defence; and, if so, what advice he has given on policy matters involving the Ministry of Defence.

Lord Drayson: No.

Oil Storage Tanks

Lord Vinson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 June (WA 85–86), what was the estimated cost under the regulatory impact assessment of October 2001 of replacing the 580,000 oil tanks in commercial use with full leakage bunding, as specified by the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001, and over what period.

Lord Bach: The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of October 2001 estimated that 468,563 oil storage tanks in the commercial sector would be affected by the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Costs to a typical business were estimated at £265 to £487 and estimated costs for all sectors (commercial, industrial and institutional) discounted to 1999 prices were:
	
		
			 All sectors and tank sizes Expected total costs 
			 Additional recurring costs of purchasing new tanks £1.6 to £5.5 million per annum 
			 Additional non-recurring costs of upgrading existing tanks at "significant risk" within two years £14 to £15 million 
			 Additional non-recurring costs of upgrading remaining existing tanks within four years £100 to £101million 
		
	
	The RIA did not seek to distinguish costs for the three sectors but it did make allowance for the fact that some tanks affected would already be wholly or partially compliant.
	The regulations are being brought into force in three stages. The final date when all tanks must be compliant is 1 September 2005.
	Further details of costs and assumptions are given in the Regulatory and Environment Impact Assessment included in the guidance note for the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. This document is available on the Department's website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/oilstore/index.htm.
	The remaining oil storage tanks in commercial use are in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and are, therefore, not covered by the 2001 oil storage regulations.

Parliamentary Estate: Cost of Electricity

Lord Avebury: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What was the cost of electricity used on the Parliamentary Estate in the most recent year for which figures are available; whether he will estimate the number of computers and laser printers left on overnight and at weekends; and how much he estimates could be saved for the taxpayer if users would switch off at those times.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: The cost of electricity used on the Parliamentary Estate in the financial year 2004–05 was £1,319,000.
	It is not possible to estimate how many computers and laser printers are left on overnight and at weekends. However, if a typical office system comprising a computer, cathode ray tube monitor and laser printer, is left on every night and weekend for a year, the power consumed would cost between £10 and £20, depending on the make and model of the equipment, and whether it is left switched on or in standby mode.

Police National Computer

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the upgrade of the police national computer to link the national DNA database and criminal records is now due for completion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: An electronic link was established between the police national computer (PNC) and the national DNA database in November 2001.

Prime Minister: Downing Street Gymnasium

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 8 June (WA 94), whether any item of physical fitness or exercise equipment has been purchased for the use of the Prime Minister at public expense.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No.

Racist Incident Monitoring Annual Reports

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will ensure that future Crown Prosecution Service racist incident monitoring annual reports include the religion or belief of the perpetrator, as well as the victim, of religiously aggravated offences; and whether they will take steps to require those responsible to record the requisite information.

Lord Goldsmith: Her Majesty's Government have no immediate plans to require those responsible to record the religion or belief of the perpetrator and the victim of religiously aggravated offences, for the purposes of the racist incident monitoring annual reports.
	We recognise that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and this will be the subject of further review and consultation.
	As with the last published racist incident monitoring annual report, such information as the Crown Prosecution Service receives as to the religion or belief of the perpetrator and the victim of religiously aggravated offences will be included in future reports.

Rainforests: Illegal Logging

Lord Eden of Winton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	With which countries and organisations they are seeking to form partnerships to develop sustainable rainforests and to protect the livelihoods of indigenous people; and what progress they are making.

Baroness Amos: The UK Government work in partnership with a number of countries and organisations to promote sustainable management of rainforests and to protect the livelihoods of indigenous people.
	In west and central Africa the Department for International Development (DfID) has recently designed a new programme of work on forest governance and trade. This will focus on reforms in Ghana and Cameroon, where EU forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) partnership agreements will help strengthen forest governance and tackle illegal logging. Support is being provided to civil society organisations and advocacy groups to strengthen demand for accountable and transparent forest governance that benefits the poor. We are also supporting civil society strengthening and dialogue between governments, the private sector and NGOs in the wider Congo Basin region.
	In Indonesia we have a programme of work under a memorandum of understanding, signed in 2002, that commits both governments to tackle illegal logging and associated trade. We also support the Multi-stakeholder Forestry Programme (MFP), which funds forestry initiatives driven by Indonesian citizens committed to improving local and national forestry conditions. It has successfully promoted the case for forest management for the benefit of the forest-dependent poor through its work in over 30 regencies across the country.
	In Cambodia DfID has supported work on independent forest monitoring carried out by Global Witness. This project was aimed at building networks of local communities, local and national non-government organisations, industry members and government officials to monitor forestry infractions and to help bring about increased transparency in the forestry sector. Protecting the rights of indigenous people was central to this work but this aim has not yet been achieved in Cambodia.
	In Brazil DfID has contributed approximately £14 million since 1993 to the £186 million multi-donor pilot programme for the preservation of Brazilian rainforests. The ongoing indigenous peoples demonstration project has enhanced the capacity of indigenous peoples' organisations throughout Amazonia to preserve indigenous cultures, protect indigenous lands against encroachment from outsiders, and to identify and generate opportunities for economic development.
	In addition to our bilateral work, the UK Government work in partnership with a number of organisations to promote the sustainable management of rainforests and protect the livelihoods of indigenous people. The Department for International Development has provided support for the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) to carry out a detailed study of the impacts of illegal logging—and improved governance and law enforcement—on the livelihoods of the poor, including indigenous people. The Forest People's Programme, which represents the interests of indigenous people, helped to carry out this research. The results of this work have informed the EU's thinking about partnership agreements under its forest law enforcement, governance and trade action plan.
	DfID is also working with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in support of the National Forest Programme Facility. This programme is enhancing the participation of civil society in the development of forest policies and programmes and is improving the organisation of forest-related civil society groups. It has provided financial support direct to civil society organisations in more than 20 countries so far.
	The World Bank's programme on forests (PROFOR), which DfID supports, focuses on building more people-centred and poverty-focused approaches to sustainable forest management. PROFOR is providing guidance on ways of integrating forest issues into poverty reduction strategies. Its work on the changing roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in forest management is giving greater voice to indigenous people's interests.
	DfID also supports the Forest Governance Learning Group, an alliance of independent agencies and partners in Sub-Saharan Africa facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). This group is working to make forest governance work for marginalised groups—including indigenous people. It has developed a series of practical guides and tools for pursuing improved governance.

Rainforests: Illegal Logging

Lord Eden of Winton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the precise nature of the discussions concerning rainforest logging operations which they have been having with (a) the United Nations Forum on Forests; (b) other European Union countries; (c) G8 countries; (d) countries with which the United Kingdom has a bilateral aid programme; (e) the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation; (f) the World Bank; (g) the Centre for International Forestry Research; (h) the World Agroforestry Centre; and (i) other international research centres; and in each case what is the timetable within which they hope to have secured agreement to bring these operations under control.

Baroness Amos: Illegal logging of the world's rainforests was discussed at the fifth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests in May 2005. UNFF is a high-level UN body for international debate and co-ordination on forestry issues. A side event on illegal logging was held to raise awareness of the issue among all countries. Illegal logging was also raised during the high-level ministerial segment attended by Mr Elliot Morley, Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). UNFF will meet again in February 2006 to consider future action on forest issues.
	The UK Government hold regular discussions with other EU member states on this issue. We are taking an active role in Europe to implement the EU's action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT). This will close our borders to illegally logged timber. We will do this by the EU entering partnership agreements with timber producing countries and providing them with assistance to tackle illegal logging. The EU FLEGT Regulation—which we hope will be agreed by the end of the year under the UK's EU presidency—will deny access to EU markets of illegally harvested timber from partner countries.
	G8 Environment and Development Ministers met in Derby in March. Illegal logging was one of two main agenda items discussed at the meeting. Ministers agreed that tackling illegal logging requires action by both timber producing and consuming countries. G8 Ministers committed themselves to a range of actions to tackle their own demand of illegally logged timber and to help timber producing countries improve their forest governance. The recommendations of G8 Environment and Development Ministers on illegal logging will be put to heads at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in July for endorsement. In 2006 we will review progress against these commitments.
	The UK is in discussion on this issue with those countries with whom we have a bilateral aid programme, including those with large areas of rainforest where illegal logging is a serious problem. Under the EU's action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT), the Government aim for the EU to conclude partnership agreements by the end of 2006 with Cameroon, Ghana and Indonesia. Under these agreements partner countries will receive development assistance to help them implement reforms, improve forest governance, and tackle illegal logging. We will work with other member states who will lead on partnership agreements with other countries in central Africa, Asia and Latin America. Further details on our bilateral work are provided in the accompanying Answer to Parliamentary Question 736.
	The UK Government have been in discussion with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations in the preparation of guidelines on forest law compliance. FAO will now take this forward with the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) to disseminate the guidelines at regional workshops.
	The UK is in discussion with the World Bank on the issue of illegal logging and supports their work on forest governance, livelihoods and finance under the Programme on Forests (PROFOR). With support from the UK and others, the World Bank facilitates regional forest law enforcement and governance (FLEG) processes in Asia, Africa and Europe and North Asia. This work helps to raise awareness of the problems of illegal logging, associated trade and corruption, and builds commitment to tackle them. Ministerial declarations on forest law enforcement and governance have been signed in East Asia (2001) and Africa (2003). Russia will host a ministerial conference for Europe and North Asia in November this year when it is hoped a similar declaration will be signed.
	The Department for International Development (DfID) provides financial support for a range of programmes conducted by the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and DfID.
	One of these assesses the implications of illegal logging— and the measures taken to control it—for the livelihoods of poor people. A second is promoting better due diligence in the finance sector that will encourage investors to check that environmental and social safeguards are being respected, A third is helping Asian countries to understand the dynamics of trade in the region and how it can drive illegal logging. DfID support to CIFOR is ongoing.
	DfID supports the World Agroforestry Centre in its long-term research programme on the domestication and market development of indigenous tropical fruit trees. The aim of this research is to provide alternative income sources for poor people who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods. DfID support to the centre is ongoing.
	Other work relevant to this subject that DfID supports is the policy research on illegal logging undertaken by Chatham House (the Royal Institute for International Affairs). DfID also supports the forest governance learning groups initiative facilitated by the International Institute for Environment and Development.

Royal Navy: CVF Project

Lord Luke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much has already been spent and how much has been committed to be spent on the project to build two new carriers for the Royal Navy.

Lord Drayson: Since the inception of the project (around 1997) through to 31 May 2005, the Ministry of Defence has spent around £221 million on the Future Carrier (CVF) project. A further £10 million is committed on current contracts until the end of July 2005.

Rural Payments Agency

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many registration applications and how many amendment applications have been recorded by the Rural Payments Agency in each of the past four years.

Lord Bach: The Rural Land Register (RLR) digitisation project was launched in April 2002 with the aim of converting alpha numeric land data, previously used by farmers to support subsidy claims, into a series of digital maps. Copies of the digital maps were sent to farmers to either confirm the land area concerned or make any amendments that might be required. The number of farmers whose holdings were digitised in this way was 76,587 and the percentage of farmers who required an amendment was 80 per cent.
	With the introduction of the single payment scheme and entry level stewardship scheme, farmers were advised that they could pre-register land. As a result RPA received 3,924 new land registrations in 2004 and 13,902 to date this year.
	Farmers can request modifications to their land registrations on an IACS 22 form. For years 2001–03 no separate record of the number of these applications was kept, but historically it has been a steady 9,000 per year. In 2004 RPA received 15,976 amendments and to date in 2005 has received 31,857.

Rural Payments Agency

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the recent data capture exercise on rural maps, what was the input error level per member of staff at Northallerton; and whether they had instructions not to correct such errors when they were identified by owners and occupiers of the land.

Lord Bach: The Rural Land Register (RLR) digitisation project was launched in April 2002, through a team of external contractors based at the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) offices in Exeter and Northallerton. All the contractors received extensive training. They had access to comprehensive instructions and their work was subject to regular quality assurance checks, which were undertaken on the work of the team rather than on individual team members.
	During the digitisation process all farmers received a copy of their digitised maps. Some farmers sought to modify RPA's record of their land holding. In such circumstances the amendments provided were accepted where the changes adhered to scheme rules, such as measuring to the edge of a large ditch rather than the centre. Where the change did not meet scheme rules the digitiser would follow an agreed protocol rather than the amendment suggested by the farmer.
	Where farmers did not return their maps within the required time scale, or did not return them at all, RPA staff confirmed the digitised area through a final set of RLR maps. In total, 25,470 holdings for farmers who had previously received subsidy had their digitised area confirmed. Of these, 12,998 holdings were digitised by staff based at Northallerton. All such farmers were advised to send in an IACS 22 (amendment form) to confirm any changes required.

Service Personnel: Fitness

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many personnel since April 2003 have been permanently medically downgraded below the standard for their arm or service; of such personnel, how many have been selected for redundancy; and of those that have been selected for redundancy, how many will be eligible for redundancy compensation.

Lord Drayson: While the numbers of medically downgraded personnel are centrally held, it is not possible to ascertain whether an individual has been downgraded below the standard for their arm or service, as the data only records when an individual has been medically downgraded to a level below which they are deployable. Deployability is determined by either the physical efficiency standard for Army or the medical employment standard for Navy and RAF. Fitness for arm or service is determined by the PULHHEEMS code (a system of medical classification) and differs for each arm and service.
	Of the three services, only the Army and the RAF are running redundancy programmes. In the Army, some 120 officers were selected for redundancy, all of whom, at the time of the redundancy board, met the appropriate medical standards. A second phase of redundancy is still to be made but no personnel have yet been selected for or invited to express an interest in redundancy. In the RAF, of the 855 personnel permanently medically downgraded since April 2003, still serving in the RAF and still medically downgraded, some 15 are due to leave on redundancy terms. All personnel selected for redundancy are entitled to the appropriate redundancy "compensation".

Tourists: Spend per Night

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the average spend per night of tourists at (a) seaside resorts in England, and (b) all English tourism destinations.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The average spend per night by tourists in 2003 was as follows.
	
		(a) Seaside resorts in England
		
			 Tourists £ 
			 domestic 1  46 
			 overseas 2  not available 
		
	
	
		(b) All English tourism destinations
		
			 Tourists £ 
			 domestic 1  55 
			 overseas 3  58 
		
	
	Notes:
	1 Source: UKTS 2003.
	2 Spend by overseas tourists at specific destinations not collected.
	3 Source: IPS 2003. Figures available per day only.

Uganda: Constitutional Referendum

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with the government of Uganda about the forthcoming constitutional referendum and its openness, transparency and democratic credibility; what view they take of the reliability of the referendum; and what representations they have made about any shortcomings.

Lord Triesman: We have repeatedly underlined our support for a return to multiparty politics, and for a free and fair referendum and elections. We hold regular meetings with Ugandan Ministers to discuss the political situation, including the transition, the forthcoming referendum and the elections due next March. The high commissioner has also raised these issues with President Museveni, most recently when they met on 28 May 2005. To help ensure that the referendum and elections are properly managed we, together with other development partners in Uganda, are contributing to a basket fund to support the work of the Electoral Commission

Waste Disposal Authorities: Statutory Obligations

Lord Dixon-Smith: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What financial provision has been made by local authorities in the current financial year against the possibility that they may have to pay financial penalties if they exceed their landfill allowances for waste during the year.

Lord Bach: The Government do not hold this information centrally. It is the responsibility of each waste disposal authority to make financial provision to meet its statutory obligations under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.
	The aim of the scheme is to provide local authorities with the flexibility to meet their obligations under the Landfill Directive in the most cost effective way to match their local circumstances. This should avoid the likelihood of financial penalties. However, should penalties be incurred in respect of landfill allowances in 2005–06, they will be payable in financial year 2006–07.